Cletus from Canuckistan:Question - if Russian soldiers are captured (without identifying insignia) on Ukrainian soil, what would they be considered under Article 5 of the Geneva Convention - POWs, unlawful combatants, or spies / saboteurs?

I've been thinking about that.

Technically the insignia doesn't have to be a Russian flag. It could be just about anything, really. Take a look at this photo:

So is British Petroleum going to end up with the Crimean and the Ukrainian oil contracts?

I just would like to know which oil giant our volunteers will be fighting and dying for this time.

/MG Smedley Butler won two Medals of Honor. Strangely enough, he is NOT buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Huh./in case you've forgotten, the Iraqi Oil Ministry building was heavily guarded while looting went on all around

He's confident, arrogant, and not wholly in the real world. And dangerous.

He's got short term gains in Ukraine. He's got Crimea, he's trying for some of the eastern regions. He's waging a huge propaganda war in Ukraine and Russia.

The problem is he's got a declining state, a weakening economy, and few international partners left. It's obvious there is great civil unrest in Russia stewing just below the surface. His military is nearly half a century out of date. The southern border of Russia passes through some of the most unstable regions of the world and he's diverting his attention away from them, relying on buffer states to hold. I don't envy the situation he has, and yet he's spreading Russia thinner.

Russia is not in danger of imminent collapse, but it keeps moving closer. It's gotten so bad that now the Russian government is trying to make Gorbachev look bad, which explains the whole context of the clip on the Daily Show. If you haven't seen that clip, it is a bit scary. Russia is trying to paint Gorbachev as a criminal and make a case that the whole collapse of the Soviet Union was not legitimate and that the Eastern Bloc is rightfully still under control of Moscow.

I don't envy the position of those making decisions. I think Putin is crazier than he first appears and that current international actions are too timid, but it's hard turning the ship of state around to take action. Too many actions we want to take are limited by internal squabbles and the realities of collateral damage.

We certainly can't view this in isolation. There have been decades of bad decisions, disregard, and deception leading to this point, and the answer is not simple or straightforward.

Ned Stark:"People who claimed the old Ukrainian government clearing out protesters was criminal" and "people urging the new Ukrainian government to stomp em flat" how closely does the Venn diagram resemble a circle?

These are vastly different.

One one hand you had peaceful protestors who overthrew their own government, and afterwards they picked up trash, and guarded the captured properties. They didn't break a single window. These are what you call good guys.

On the other hand you have violent protestors who captured government buildings (not overthrown the government) and vandalized and generally break things and threaten and intimidate anyone who gets in their way. Many of these same people are not even Ukrainians but are instead Russian troops with orders to stir dissent. These are what you call bad guys.

Egoy3k:I'm not sure I'd call this guy a 'protestor' maybe militiaman or rebel or soldier but not really a protestor.

[www.ctvnews.ca image 850x552]

Recently-developed Russian digital camouflage first issued to Russian special forces and Russian Internal troops, just now slowly making its way into the hands of regular Russian soldiers? Of course he's a Ukrainian protestor! I'll bet these totally not-Russian gunmen will get next-generation tanks too!

Grahor:It is my opinion that while Russians use the separatists for all they can, they will not invade as long as only firearms-armed separatists will die. There is no indication in Russian news, those I have access to, that they are ramping up the propaganda for actual invasion.

It is also my opinion that the armed guys there are either from Crimea (Aksyonov's thugs? Very possibly. Aksyonov is a bully and an idiot, he just could do something so monumentally stupid) or hireling of local oligarchs who are aligned with Russia (Rinat Akhmetov is one of those, is seems his money support separatists.)

We know that there were groups of hirelings in Crimea, including Serbians, of course Russians of all kinds, and so on. All of them traveled there in hopes of actual fighting, which they didn't get. Right now, they are not needed in Crimea; so they are probably bored and seek somebody who will pay them to do what they like best: cause troubles. There is no lack of those willing to pay...

I don't believe any single one of them is actually Russian soldier of spetsnaz; there is no point in using such people when there are plenty of "blackwater" type hirelings available, with perfect deniability, for whom not a single tear will be spent by anyone.

Yeah, wake me up when the tanks roll through Kharkov. Pootie was pi*ssed when his Ukrainian puppet was forced to cut and run and he's just `shaping' the compliance of the `new' gov. in Kiev without Dioxin, this time . I'd be curry combing for speculations on the energy market that look more like sure things from the time Yanukovych went wheels down in Moscow. It's not like Ukraine doesn't owe $7 billion, they can't pay, for Russian gas already sucked up (maybe pootie thinks he can get EU/IMF/US to settle that debt - or else...).Anyway, it's all kabuki theater unless some tyro farks up - Pootie's got the whole `hydraulic despot' gig going for him (ala Frank Herbert -oil/gas=spice). When the Germans commit to new reactors - then the shiat's getting serious:

jshine:Egoy3k: I'm not sure I'd call this guy a 'protestor' maybe militiaman or rebel or soldier but not really a protestor.

[www.ctvnews.ca image 850x552]

...or, more likely, a Russian soldier in a uniform without national insignia.

We should arrest them and ship them off to Gitmo. Is Putin still disavowing them as Russian soldiers?

"Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Gunny Highway:danzak: I know they are there, I was wondering what they are doing at the moment.

From what I've read, the Russian special forces are clearing the buildings, setting up the road blocks and seizing weapons caches. The Ukrainians are then grouped in with them to occupy those buildings, man the road blocks etc

like these guys:

[www.kyivpost.com image 460x308]

Thanks

They are also mixed in with the Russian "tourist" protesters, some of whom were seen in Crimea etc. There are reports that "tourist protesters" are being brought in and told to pose as locals but have no idea who the mayor of the city is or any other basic information.

Tatterdemalian:Today: "Meh, it's just the Ukraine. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Tomorrow: "Meh, it's just Eastern Europe. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Eventually: "Meh, it's just one more unexplained nuclear detonantion in US flyover country. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."

/are good men doing nothing really still good?

Pity that interventionist poster boy Bush got us into deep shiat without an exit strategy...twice.

Now reasonable people are, quite understandably, reluctant to intervene again, even when it's appropriate.

Credibility is an easy thing to squander, and a hard thing to restore.

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit. If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

Actually, if you take into consideration just the US Constitution, Bundy has a point. Article 1, section 8, Paragraph 17 (describing the powers of congress): "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings "

All further constitutional powers granted to the federal government (Article 4, for example) only allow the federal government to regulate public lands. The federal government was never granted the power or authority to seize the majority of the Midwest and declare ownership. Yes, the government can own land. But there are heavy restrictions on what exact land it can own, and what it can use those lands for. The BLM is a branch of the federal government, much like the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, (or any other agency) and as such should be bound by the same rules as the rest of the government. Under none of the special legal privileges granted to the Federal Government do the lands claimed by the BLM have any legal standing (other than "Precedent"), therefore, the land is technically "Unclaimed" and falls under state l ...

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit. If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

Actually, if you take into consideration just the US Constitution, Bundy has a point. Article 1, section 8, Paragraph 17 (describing the powers of congress): "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings "

All further constitutional powers granted to the federal government (Article 4, for example) only allow the federal government to regulate public lands. The federal government was never granted the power or authority to seize the majority of the Midwest and declare ownership. Yes, the government can own land. But there are heavy restrictions on what exact land it can own, and what it can use those lands for. The BLM is a branch of the federal government, much like the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, (or any other agency) and as such should be bound by the same rules as the rest of the government. Under none of the special legal privileges granted to the Federal Government do the lands claimed by the BLM have any legal standing (other than "Precedent"), therefore, the land is technically "Unclaimed" and falls under state laws regarding the filing of claims for mining or homesteading. If you disagree, you are quite welcome to point out the particular article of the US Constitution that grants the Federal Government ownership of the majority of the midwestern and western lands. So far, no one has been able to.

All2morrowsparTs:This text is now purple: All2morrowsparTs: It has been argued that Japan's Imperial ambitions prior to ww2 was the result of Japan getting shafted when they were doling out all the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles.

How did Japan get shafted? Germany had one Pacific colony that was spun off as an independent nation.

And it was the damned Solomons. All they had was malaria. ShadowKamui: All2morrowsparTs: spawn73: dukeblue219: spawn73: WWII was basicly Europe

... and the Middle East, and North Africa, and SE Asia, and India, China, Japan, Australia...

That's a good point. Whatever Japan had going with China, and partly USA had very little to do with Europe.

Untill Japan started attacking all the Dutch and English colonies of course. But still.

It has been argued that Japan's Imperial ambitions prior to ww2 was the result of Japan getting shafted when they were doling out all the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles.

Yeah noGermany had next to nothing in the far east: the Samoan Islands, maybe an 8th of New Guinea and a few lesser islands.

The Japanese Empire pretty much tried to take Korea and make China its biatch from the start of the Meiji Erahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Treaty_of_1876http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_War_%281894-1895%29

They expanded there ambitions to the French and Dutch areas after America and some Europeans started placing embargoes on them for starting the second Sino-Japanese War

Ah No and No:

They also had Shandong in China which was given to the Japanese but were only given Madate over Palau, Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands.

Japan was aggrieved as they were refused equal racial treatment in the Treaty of Versailles and were not allowed equal free regain in Manchuria as the Americans and British had in latin America and Colonies, respectfiully.http://www.japanfocus.org/-Richard_J_-Smethurst/3825http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ...

Australia (yeah yeah UK territory at the time) put an embargo on China in 1937 and the US did greatly reduce what they sold Japan and began supplying China. UK and France also began supplying China

There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Versailles that would have changed what Japan did prior to 1941, short of giving the total control of Manchuria.

They were an aggressive empire bent on total domination of Korea and at least Northern China. Trying to blame some stupid after thought in the Treaty of Versailles is nothing but a horrible attempt at white washing the crimes committed by the Japaneses aggressors against China and Korea

This thread is starting to confuse me...so there are Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms riding cattle from Nevada and having a stand-off with Ukraine and the BLM? Have I got that right? Also desert tortoises on land with gas pipelines to Western Europe?

dittybopper:Part of the problem is that the government wanted to knock back his cattle herd from 1,000 to 150.

Imagine if the government said to you "Hey, you can't work 40 hours a week anymore, you can only work 6 hours a week. At the same hourly rate. With no compensation".

That's what started the whole thing.

/He should have payed the fees *AND* continued to graze as before.

Yes, had he done that he might actually have a leg to stand on. Especially since the fees are $1.35 per cow per month.

Nevertheless, doesn't the owner of a piece of property have a right to determine how it's used? If you owned land and had a deal with your neighbor to let him graze his cattle, don't you have the right to tell him how many cattle he can graze?

dittybopper:Cletus from Canuckistan: Question - if Russian soldiers are captured (without identifying insignia) on Ukrainian soil, what would they be considered under Article 5 of the Geneva Convention - POWs, unlawful combatants, or spies / saboteurs?

I've been thinking about that.

Technically the insignia doesn't have to be a Russian flag. It could be just about anything, really. Take a look at this photo:

[www.blogcdn.com image 850x565]

They all appear to have a red and yellow ribbon on their uniforms. That would be enough to trigger the "having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance" requirement.

It isn't that simple, for them to be recognized as legal combatants in a state of open war, Russia would have to acknowledge that their actions were at its behest.... that seems unlikely. If Russia cuts them loose and says they were acting on their own, then they are not protected by the Geneva conventions, but would be subject to whatever the local laws are regarding their actions.

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit. If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

Ummm... 1) it was not always owned by the feds. 2) it was not bought by the feds, the feds used questionable policy to assert rights over the lands. 3) the feds have used said policy to take around 80% of Nevada's state lands. 4) the same desert turtle was moved in order to build a solar plant for Reid's good friend, but apparently too endangered to allow cattle on the same land.

3. force military volunteers to live in near poverty and serve multiple 15 month combat tours with little or no time off between tours

/You know, if you live on the right side of the tracks and know the right people, war can be a real money-maker.

Here's a better model. Females have achieved greater access to all sectors of the military. Let's end the descrimination of requiring only MALES to register for selective service.

I think Congress and the POTUS authorized the use of female troops in combat quite a while ago. Whether they are now all eligible for military service via the draft I have no idea. If they aren't now, they will be whenever the draft is reinstituted.

*News flash* The draft would draw from the ranks of people who have registered for selective service. Currently only 18 year old MALES are required to register. Obama needs to end the descrimination against men.

Tigger:Cletus from Canuckistan: Question - if Russian soldiers are captured (without identifying insignia) on Ukrainian soil, what would they be considered under Article 5 of the Geneva Convention - POWs, unlawful combatants, or spies / saboteurs?

They are not lawful combatants. You should be able to get away with executing them as spies.

Sure they are. They are wearing uniforms and as I pointed out above I often see them with red and yellow ribbons on those uniforms. Provided they are openly armed, follow some sort of leader who is responsible for them, and follow the laws of war, they are very likely protected.

Now, if you have some guys in civilian clothes without any such insignia, then yeah, those you could probably execute after a trial.

Mad_Radhu:Tatterdemalian: Today: "Meh, it's just the Ukraine. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Tomorrow: "Meh, it's just Eastern Europe. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Eventually: "Meh, it's just one more unexplained nuclear detonantion in US flyover country. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."

/are good men doing nothing really still good?

Even if Russia takes the Ukraine, they can't expand a whole lot further without hitting new NATO nations like Poland. If anything, Putin is acting out of fear of the EU and NATO encroaching past the old Eastern Block and into the old Soviet Union, which is why he made his move when he did. The revolution in the Ukraine forced his hand, and he had to act to keep the Ukraine from slipping over to the West. If anything, his recent actions show how weak Russia has become, barely able to exert power over their own region without resorting to force.

Putin has been swinging his dick around a lot lately, but it really says more about his own insecurities than it does our weakness.

Let's hope you're right, because it seems hope is the only thing we're going to deploy now that sanctions are off the table.

/hope and change//our hope that Putin doesn't change the bargain any further

Iraq gave up nuclear program but still was starting shiat and blocking inspections, repeatedly skirting if not outright violating the terms of the ceasefire and had attempted to assassinate a former president, invaded by west.Libya gave up nuclear program, overthrown by westafter the Arab Spring in several countries encouraged locals to rise up against the leadership.Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons, abandoned by west presently being partitioned by east.

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit. If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

It is about the contract between lessor and lessee. Its not the turtle.Lessor was not performing as per BLM agreement so the lessee got upset and didn't pay the BLM fees and it took many years to reach this boiling point.Someone wants to use the land for something other than grazing.

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit. If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

It is about the contract between lessor and lessee. Its not the turtle.Lessor was not performing as per BLM agreement so the lessee got upset and didn't pay the BLM fees and it took many years to reach this boiling point.Someone wants to use the land for something other than grazing.

What? There is no contract per say. Its rather simple. BLM manages the land and attempts to keep it fertile. If you want your animals to graze on BLM managed land you pay a fee.Guy was grazing his animals on BLM land, and stated that BLM wasn't properly managing his animals for him (They aren't supposed to manage YOUR animals for you, that's your job), and insist upon grazing for free.Yeah, I kinda get the locals are upset that they want to put up windfarms on the land or whatever.Why do these people think that property rights are sacrosanct, except when its federal property.

It is my opinion that while Russians use the separatists for all they can, they will not invade as long as only firearms-armed separatists will die. There is no indication in Russian news, those I have access to, that they are ramping up the propaganda for actual invasion.

It is also my opinion that the armed guys there are either from Crimea (Aksyonov's thugs? Very possibly. Aksyonov is a bully and an idiot, he just could do something so monumentally stupid) or hireling of local oligarchs who are aligned with Russia (Rinat Akhmetov is one of those, is seems his money support separatists.)

We know that there were groups of hirelings in Crimea, including Serbians, of course Russians of all kinds, and so on. All of them traveled there in hopes of actual fighting, which they didn't get. Right now, they are not needed in Crimea; so they are probably bored and seek somebody who will pay them to do what they like best: cause troubles. There is no lack of those willing to pay...

I don't believe any single one of them is actually Russian soldier of spetsnaz; there is no point in using such people when there are plenty of "blackwater" type hirelings available, with perfect deniability, for whom not a single tear will be spent by anyone.

I keep getting the impression that when all this is done there will not be a single house standing in Eastern Ukraine. Those poor stupid bastards in the soon to be barren wasteland actually believed the Russian propaganda and will pay dearly for it along with all the innocent people in the middle.

I know they are there, I was wondering what they are doing at the moment.

From what I've read, the Russian special forces are clearing the buildings, setting up the road blocks and seizing weapons caches. The Ukrainians are then grouped in with them to occupy those buildings, man the road blocks etc

Tatterdemalian:Today: "Meh, it's just the Ukraine. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Tomorrow: "Meh, it's just Eastern Europe. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Eventually: "Meh, it's just one more unexplained nuclear detonantion in US flyover country. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."

/are good men doing nothing really still good?

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."-- Sun Tzu

Its about damn time... Ukraine needs to assert its authority and regain control, but they have russia just hopeing for an excuse to invade under the lie of "protecting Russian speakers from Ukrainian violence". And that really is all it is, A big fat bold lie.

Tatterdemalian:Today: "Meh, it's just the Ukraine. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Tomorrow: "Meh, it's just Eastern Europe. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."Eventually: "Meh, it's just one more unexplained nuclear detonantion in US flyover country. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."

/are good men doing nothing really still good?

Your fertile imagination in the other hand, definitely worth a nuclear war.